I am categorically averse to any sort of soapbox preaching but… I feel that I must express my thoughts here because as I look around both locally and abroad I see that there are mainly two camps. The first are adherents of their designated religion. The second are advocates of Atheism that assert since there is suffering in this world, problems with organized religion’s validity, and empirical evidence that appears to disprove Intelligent Design that there can be no god at all. In these essays I will utilize the most of my meager resources to offer a third camp, a bastion of reason. I don’t expect to change anything; I merely wish to bring Thomas Paine’s philosophy out of crumbling history books and onto the vast canvases of human minds far superior than my own.
Deism: An all but forgotten religious philosophy that believes god is a metaphorical “clockmaker” and that once he started the universe (i.e. the Big Bang) he willfully stepped aside and let it run without hindrance (Since there is no man-made dogma in Deism, Deists are free to believe that there is no Providential influence in the world, or, like George Washington, some Deists believe that there may be Providential influence but that it is inscrutable. The editor), this and thus by extension, Deists refute miracles. Deism also denies the validity of “revealed” religions such as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam as these would require divine intervention to human “prophets.” Deists’ imagining on whom god is and what his true nature is varies from person to person. It is appropriate that Deism, which prides self-realization through the examination of the environment to be alternatively known as the “Natural Religion.”
Born Again Through Reason
Please read "a word" first
The following is an open letter to an imaginary individual who strongly subscribes to the beliefs of Christianity. I realize that the tone of my rationalization is sometimes pugnacious but please keep in mind that it is intended as a highly spirited appeal to reason. Lastly, I am an enemy to superstitions but I am a friend to the superstitious. I don’t call into question the integrity of the religious, for their gentleness and compassion nearly always exceeds my own. Rather, I make this work for them, because they deserve so much better than what they’ve been trained to believe in.
You seem to be under the notion that god has revealed himself to humanity and that his essence is contained in the Bible. Let's play a game for a moment. Hypothetically, if god did indeed instill his words into the Bible then one must garner that he wanted it to be understood, correct? If that is the case then all liberal allegorical interpretations regarding the Bible's passages are false (such as Purgatory, Limbo, Universal Reconciliation, and the Catholic concept of hell). How do I reason this? It’s simple. If the stories in the Bible were meant for deep multifaceted interpretation then humanity could misconstrue their meaning into a thousand different combinations whilst missing their true message. Since humans are not birthed with a sense of "goodness" and “sensibility” (as demonstrated by the extreme uneven distribution of wealth, and man's many wars and massacres; some of which are quite recent or ongoing such as Rwanda, Srebrenica, and Darfur) and instead are taught it over time, then any dictator could very well convince people that the Bible’s message was to do whatever the hell he wanted.
Using that logic, if the Bible is authentic then one must gather that god wanted it to be taken literally, because otherwise he would invite confusion amongst humanity, who couldn't possibly interpret his intended meaning. I recognize that figure of speech is used in the Bible, but one must remember that non-literal interpretation threatens to smear the face of Christianity. Take for example the six days of creation; they are not figurative because they are literal 24 hour time periods. How do I know they are literal days? Well, because the Bible says so. After every day of creation Yahweh says “And the evening and the morning were the first day (the days change accordingly from verses 1:5 to 31).” It’s an unsavory proposition to suggest that god would play mind games with humanity when he actually says evening and morning! Obviously however, when it says “All the trees of the field shall clap their hands” it is clearly not meant to be construed for manlike trees, but rather identified as the literary use of personification. At every opportunity the Bible should be read in the literal sense; if a plainly read verse is understandable then it should be left alone. Taking this into consideration, it becomes obvious that Protestant Fundamentalism is the only form of Christianity; anything else is just watered down by modernistic interpretation which alienates itself from the Bible’s actual contents. Take the Roman Catholic Church for example; the majority of their doctrine comes from church tradition or the Pope’s ruminations rather than the actual Bible. If the Bible is god’s word, then it should speak for itself, we should not remodel its message. Scripture interprets scripture, as used by Martin Luther’s Sola Scriptura (by scripture alone). Thusly, all the tales of blasphemy against humanity such as Yahweh’s threat to the Israelites that if they didn’t butcher the inhabitants of Canaan (kids included) into bloody giblets then he would prick their eyes out, are in fact meant to be straightforwardly read. This coupled with his “smiting” of all the Egyptian newborn and his approval of Job's children being slaughtered by the devil just to see how Job would react, all accumulate to my slight displeasure with this hatemongering Mother Goose storybook. Let us also not forget the addition of the Biblical god’s merry torturous inferno of sulfuric acid where the flesh of people (many of whom lived a virtuous life but merely didn’t accept Christ) are scorched eternally in a lake of fire. Even with this decapitation attack on the moral standards in the Bible; I’ve only made a dent in the armor of atrocity regarding the Bible’s passages which if genuine, would have to be accepted literally with no possible liberal allegorical interpretation.
One of many frequently debated stories in the Bible comes from the Book of Numbers. In it Yahweh instructs Moses and his Israelite army to attack the Midianites (whom had vehemently persecuted them). After the Israelites won the battle they execute all the males, including the children, and they slaughter every woman whom was not a virgin, all on Yahweh’s orders. The Israelites then forcibly capture the remaining 32,000 virgins for themselves as mates. Of the virgins, 32 are sacrificed to Yahweh as appeasement. Biblical apologists defend this passage by saying that we’re applying contemporary values on ancient civilizations. This statement is a superb example of moral relativism, which is the line of “thinking” that what’s right and wrong changes over time. Is there some magical benchmark you reach that decides when evil is truly evil? If one does not acknowledge evil even during times of strife, then morality is impossible. It would constitute as saying that good and evil are subjective at various points in time, that morality is only a deluded ideal that melts away at the touch of unwanted troubles. I believe in absolute morality, but apparently the Biblical god views ethics through blood spattered spectacles. Although it is true that the male children could have potentially come back to the Israelites when they were older to seek vengeance upon their dead, it changes nothing. Doing the right thing sometimes means one has to help others even when there’s a strong chance of something negative coming out of it. Although I adeptly understand that the Israelite culture knew little of morality, their god did. Yahweh should have imparted wisdom on the virtues of reconciling with one’s enemies, not teaching them “Eye for eye, tooth for tooth.” Apologists like to say that god had to be “strict” at that time so Satan wouldn’t tempt the Israelites and ruin the Messianic Prophecy. This is insanity! I can think of no better way to resist the devil’s temptations than for god to impart lessons on benevolence. To kill defenseless women and children is the most abhorrent of crimes, regardless of the circumstance, and executing women just for being “deflowered” is exceedingly outrageous even amongst the psychotic. The devil is allegedly evil incarnate, but if the Biblical god kills the innocent then why should the latter deserve my allegiance more than the former? I can’t help but find it darkly humorous that people like Mohandas Gandhi, a mere human, could see and partake in selfless love against his enemies but our supposed “god” could not. Gandhi would directly contradict Yahweh’s teachings when he proclaimed “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.” He knew that doing the right thing wasn’t always easy, and he still gladly died in order to do it. Yet according to the Bible, Gandhi (a Hindu unbeliever) is cast ablaze in hell to this day. The quote “Shall mortal man be more just than God? Shall a man be more pure than his maker?” from the Book of Job seems particularly fitting.
I fail to understand why liberal Christian apologists say “Christ was the ‘lamb’ to clear away all the regulations and violence of the Old Testament.” This is as bad as a misconception can get. Even thousands of years after the events depicted in the OT, the megalomaniacal Biblical god would still be unable to uncouple himself from his fiendish acts of barbarism such as his summoning of two bears whose jagged claws tore into the sinew and muscle of 42 children that had “dared” to tease a bald man. We are told that after Jesus’ crucifixion a new covenant between god and man was cast. However the heart of this new covenant was built distinctly on brutish OT laws and values. Jesus is after all, part of the Trinity, and as thus he makes up the same entity that committed atrocities in the OT. Those that lived after the NT’s inscription would not be required to follow the vicious OT mandates because their salvation was only dependent on faith through Christ. Although the Israelite laws were no longer obligatory, exercising them would be a way of more fully obeying and mimicking god as he intended. Take for example, Yahweh’s paganish Ceremonial Law that demanded bloody sacrifice. Although no longer needed for appeasing Yahweh, conducting a sacrifice in his name would no doubt honor him, for Yahweh never found anything wrong with sacrifice in the OT, so it would make sense that he wouldn’t “grow out” of his dead animal fetish. As a show of the OT’s reliability, many of Jesus’ teachings take directly from the Ten Commandments. Jesus even said himself that “For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” Luke also said that "It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." In addition Paul of Tarsus stated in one of his fourteen letters addressed to Timothy that “All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching.” Jesus would also say again that “Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.” Right there in black and white he says he came to fulfill the Messianic Prophecy not to get rid of the established laws of the OT. So looking at just four of the plethora of NT verses that stress OT values, it is clear that the morally reprehensible OT was always meant to be depended upon. The horrible acts committed in the OT were not “washed away” but were rather engrained into the very fiber of the NT’s covenant.
Another grievance I hold from this “holy” text is its complete sanctioning of the monstrous institution of slavery, both in the Old Testament and the New Testament. Not in one verse does it condemn its practice, and therefore by default, the Biblical god allowed the propagation of slavery to spread uninhibited throughout history. So if a god would reveal commandments on how to function in society such as not talking back to one’s parents (which consequently was punishable by death as stated in Exodus) then why on earth wouldn’t he throw in a tablet on forgoing the owning of people? Indeed the actions of abolitionists actually went against Sola Scriptura. For you see, the Ten Commandments actually encourage slavery within it’s text, such as where it says every Sabbath a slave shall be given rest by his master, and where it distinctly states for men to not covet their neighbor’s house, wife, or male or female slaves (a few Bibles like to replace the word “slave” with the feel-good term “servant” but the correct translation and meaning is slave). In concordance with this, any remaining uncertainty as to why modern nations such as the Confederate States of America sustained slavery, should be easily remedied due to the numerous Biblical verses further advocating slavery, such as Exodus’s regulation of beatings to “only” within an inch of the slave’s life when it says “and if a man smite (beat) his bondman, or his bondwoman, with a rod, and he die under his hand (immediately thereafter or during the beating); he shall surely be punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue (survive after the beating) a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his money (property).” Admittedly the Bible does denounce abducting slaves, however if a man sells his family it’s okay regardless of the reason. Need five shekels? Sell your son! Although Leviticus of the Old Testament instructs that fellow Hebrew brethren that sell themselves are only to be kept as temporary hired servants for seven years, it also lucidly states that non-Hebrews who sell themselves or their family (children included) will be kept forever as property. I guess Yahweh was a big fan of racial superiority. The New Testament even throws its hat into the ring when “Saint” Peter proclaims “Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.” Although Paul of Tarsus told slaves whom desired freedom to attain it if possible, he clearly supports the institution of slavery in general when he says “Were you a slave when you were called (became a Christian)? Don't let it trouble you, although if you can gain your freedom, do so.” If Paul had deemed it fit to condemn slavery as an immoral practice that would have been an ample opportunity to do so. At the same time, Paul actually condemns the defiance of a slave to his master when he says “Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it.” Under Paul’s wishy-washy instructions one might find it difficult to attain freedom if one was bound to all of his master’s edicts. In addition, Paul had sent an epistle requesting the freedom of a man named Onesimus (whom had befriended and helped Paul after being baptized by him) to his master Philemon. Since Paul had recently converted Philemon to Christianity, he readily agreed. It distinctly looks like I just contradicted myself, but not all is as it appears to be. Not in one part of the epistle did Paul condemn or even criticize the actual institution of slavery, nor did he ask for Philemon to free his other slaves. In the contents of the epistle, Paul reminds Philemon that he owes him his very self. It was after all, Paul whom had given him salvation in Christ. If Paul had wanted, he could’ve easily convinced Philemon to stop holding slaves. Paul did not help free Onesimus because of the ills of slavery; he did it because he was his friend and fellow Christian, nothing more. Biblical passages such as these ensured that slave traders who would later sell rum to Africans, who they in turn gave members of their families up as chattel, would be under the continued belief that they were on god’s side. Although many Africans were abducted by raiding parties, the only thing southern plantation slave owners had to do was assume that the African’s family had sold him, that way they were free to buy the African under the Bible’s regulations. There was no way to know that he had been abducted because the African’s word could not be trusted. Assuming the African even agreed with his family’s decision to sell him, he still might very well lie once he realized his abysmal working conditions. In addition to this, obviously any slave traders who kidnapped Africans would assert that they attained them only through their families. So after a hard day’s work of whipping their slaves’ shredded backs, plantation owners could sleep soundly in their beds at night, for their god smiled over them.
If Christianity is legitimate then it would seem just mildly unfair that individuals who existed before the Bible’s inscription were to be condemned to god’s apathy via the absence of his guidance. People who may have lived a righteous life if “god’s word” was available to them, would be forgotten simply because they didn’t live in the proper time period. It is also interesting that a "benevolent" god would only be appeased to give means to salvation once the son of a humble carpenter was excruciatingly sacrificed. If the Biblical god wished to forgive our original sin, then why not just forgive us? Are Adam and Eve’s transgressions our fault? What’s the point of all the theatrics; is it how Yahweh gets his jollies? I acknowledge that there are positive rivulets of virtue within the Bible, but the sad fact is they all flow from an evil source.
I could dip into my colors of verity and further paint upon the features of this bold lie with broad brush strokes not based on a moral standpoint, but rather on hard science. The Bible’s guise falls away under reason’s watching eyes, such as the Bible’s six day chronology of Genesis and its creation of man negated by the scientific community’s virtually universal support of evolution as fact. My gripes are further bolstered by the complete lack of evidence for Noah’s impossible worldwide flood, and the Bible’s genealogical assertion that the earth is only 6000 years old proved absolutely wrong by the trusted method of radiometric age dating. Even the proponents of “Young Earth” Creationism admit they have no competing scientifically proven method for dating the earth and instead rely solely on the Bible’s “authority.” Furthermore, it also seems odd that although the Bible states that hell is located within the earth, not even the most sensitive of seismic equipment have located any findings to support such a claim. This laundry list of misgivings barely constitutes a thimbleful of points that even by themselves adeptly illustrate that faith in Judeo-Christian religion is a veritable cargo hold filled to the brim with willful blindness.
It is said that scientists draw on facts to form a conclusion, alternatively; it is said that theologians draw on a presumed conclusion then find facts (or merely something not known yet) in order to support that purported conclusion. One of these is the scientific method; can you discern which one it is? Kidding aside, it almost seems as if religious zealots view science as a subsidiary of reasoning (or at worst, irrelevant), as if proof can just be shrugged off with an enthusiastic “But the Bible says!” Such articles of the Bible’s nonsensical madness include Genesis clearly stating that god made light on the first day, but created the stars (the source of natural light) only on the fourth day. Obviously god would have the power to create light (being the Supreme Being) but in order to create light he would have to create a light source first, doing otherwise would be contradictory to the laws of nature he was setting in motion. It seems apparent then that the Bible was an artificially manufactured tome whose fallacies partially stem from the fact that it was written well before the development of comprehensive astronomy and in fact any scientific method. To say “Only the Bible’s message is inerrant” in defense is to imply that god would willingly input deceptive falsehoods into its text merely to “dumb down” his message. Such an act would not only inevitably baffle his audience in the future advancement of civilization, but could potentially bring skepticism to its very authenticity of being god’s true word (obviously all this has already transpired). Rightfully so, because one with any cogent thinking would discern that everything a supreme being said would be inerrant in all aspects. The Bible may have been written by fallible men but it was supposed to have been directed by an infallible god. I highly doubt he would let mistakes go uncorrected in its inscription, which is of course assuming he knew about the errors, but that would create a dichotomy in the Bible when it says that god knows and sees everything.
I can fully assure you that I’m only scratching the surface on how incoherent Christianity really is. While as a Deist I don’t approve of this website’s Atheism (and it often brings up a lot of dubious and negligible points) www.skepticsannotatedbible.com is still a decent website for helping to debunk Christianity and Islam. If I have such hard contempt for Christianity then what indeed is my beef with Islam? Well, besides the Quran being just as irrational and violent as the Bible, the main bone I have to pick is actually from the two most “trusted” and “authentic” Sunni Hadiths, (the sayings of Muhammad) the Sahih Bukhari and the Sahih Muslim. You see, in both of these it clearly states from the direct perspective of Aisha (Muhammad’s favored lover) that she was either 6 or 7 years old when she married Muhammad and exactly 9 years old when she consummated her marriage (had sexual intercourse). One may rush to the defense of the purported prophet, saying that in his time era it was a common occurrence. That is completely true and I agree with that; however don’t you think Allah would tell his prophet “Hey Muhammad, I don’t want to kill your buzz, but maybe you shouldn’t have sex with kids buddy.” If Islam is true then that means that Allah deliberately stood by and let the perpetuation of pedophilia run rampant throughout Muslim history without one utterance of reproach. Moreover, if Allah would reveal the Quran to Muhammad, then why wouldn’t he reveal that child molestation is frowned upon?
Those who disfavor the previously mentioned website charge that it uses too much “argument by outrage.” What they mean is, the moral questioning of the Bible’s numerous crimes against humanity such as the bashing of infants’ heads on stones is “ridiculous” because “they didn’t live in the same time as us.” Do you really believe that a loving god would authorize and commit horrendous murder in his own holy book that was meant to be read for thousands of years, or do you merely not feel comfortable leaving your tethered Christian roots? While it is true that religion gives many meaning in their lives and can potentially inspire a person to help others, it is also true that it is wholly inconsequential. Besides religions bearing the hallmarks of a Bigfoot hoax, they have consistently over the annals of human history brought out the worst spirit in mankind during such happenings as the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, radical Islamic terrorism, and an ancient widespread deep rooted animosity towards others with opposing faiths (just look at the Pope’s recent quoting of a Byzantine emperor who said “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman…”). While it’s accurate to maintain that numerous dark eras in mankind’s history have also been secular, as soon as a man believes that he is doing “god’s work” he becomes blind to earthly delights and the preciousness of life around him as he frantically seeks to appease his god through any means necessary. Why should he care about the physical repercussions of his actions when he believes he will be rewarded with eternal paradise? A man without reason such as this is not a man, but a mere beast. I grow weary of peaceniks expressing their vision of a multicultural utopia that is united in love but separate in belief. The politically correct myth that identifies itself as religious tolerance is an ill-conceived joke, and everyone knows it. Humanity will never truly live in peace and harmony when each individual believes his own very “salvation” is at stake, and that his infidel neighbors will end up burning in hell anyway. The answer then is quite clear: kill religion, completely and utterly.
While I am by absolutely no means an “expert” on religious critiquing; I am however quite proficient in the field of common sense. As a parting warning, if you are unconvinced that America Cornerstone Church in San Antonio , where the pastor hysterically preached for war with Iraq
So I appeal to you sir to renounce your faith and go with god through the only road that is not clouded by a fog of falsities. Read Thomas Paine's “Age of Reason,” the divinely uninspired writings of a flawed man, and then follow him on the freethinking path of Deism. No organized religion could possibly approximate the entity that crafted the blueprints to the universe’s foundation. No mere book could contain the essence of such a cosmic force, and certainly no half-baked developed primate could be his “son” and equal in any “Trinity.” That being said, I personally (I know I can’t entirely authenticate this) believe that the reason our Deist god does not intervene and or reveal himself in this realm is because he loves us. Although it’s exceedingly doubtful that god is anthropomorphic, I would imagine that he has some sort of penchant for his creation, otherwise, why would he commence the Big Bang in the first place? If he interfered every time earth (and indeed other alien worlds) had a bit of trouble (even including such unpleasantries as genocide, famine, and disease) then we would no longer be “human.” We would lose our independence and simply be a trained monkey on a string who yelped for help whenever it was frightened.
This rebuttal to your beliefs is certainly not a Rosetta Stone to metaphysics, but hopefully this will illuminate some of the failings and contradictions of your faith. To me my friend, the “good news” is nothing juxtaposed to the best news, the clarion call of reason.
-Unfortunately, due to my desire to keep this as short as possible I was unable to touch base on many other glaring falsities, contradictions, and heinous acts in Abrahamic religions and I also had to limit my responses to anticipated apologist rebuttals. I was also unable to talk about Eastern religion at all, so make sure you check out www.religioustolerance.org for a decent enough primer on general religions (although I guess you could just go to Wikipedia), or go to www.sacred-texts.com for a free look at various religious texts. Don’t forget to look at the links on www.skepticsannotatedbible.com some of their suggested sites are pretty helpful. What I like to do is after I go to Skeptics I then go to the apologist rebuttal http://www.tektoonics.com/etc/parody/sab.html and sift the truth out myself. For a hammering demolition of the unbiblical idea of “age of accountability” go to http://members.aol.com/twarren13/account.html. It’s also important to note that “Evangelicalism” is a sticky term to pin down. It’s not a denomination, but rather more of a movement similar to “Fundamentalism,” for they’re both torchbearers in the race of who can close off their minds the fastest. For reference, the word “Allah” merely means “god” in Arabic but it’s almost always associated with Islam. Muslims say that their god is the same entity as written in the Old Testament, but if you ask any Jew or Christian they’ll firmly deny it. Not to mention that the Quran obviously teaches vastly different tenets than the Bible, therefore the god depicted in the Bible is not the same entity as depicted in the Quran. It’s also vital to realize that a few fellow Deists still believe in the antiquated view that god handcrafted the earth and the life that inhabits it. Needless to say, I think that view is deeply erroneous because every venue of contemporary science invalidates it, and violently so. Just go to www.talkorigins.org for superb information on why the natural order does not need divine assistance (the site even cripples the arguments of Biblical Creationists to boot). As another trivial side note: Although I said that humans are not birthed with a sense of “goodness” I feel obligated to mention that innate human nature is still currently unknown. The vast majority of psychologists accept the “Blank Slate” theory, which is what I referred to in my essay. It states that humans are birthed with no morality and are instead slowly molded by their surroundings and experiences. There is another theory however that directly opposes this. The “Noble Savage” theory asserts that humans are born fundamentally “good” but are corrupted by society during their upbringing. In the end both of these theories support me when I said humans could very easily be persuaded that the Bible meant whatever a crazy despot wanted them to think. In conclusion, I could be wrong about humans not being born “good,” but it doesn’t matter due to their ease of corruptibility. So it would seem quite logical then that god would want the Bible to be read literally so as not to sow vast confusion to his meaning. I’m not alone in this line of thinking either; according to a 2002 CNN/Time poll 36% of Americans believe the Bible is to be taken literally. I differ from them on one key point though. I’m not a Christian.
“I have found Christian dogma unintelligible.”
-Benjamin Franklin
Deism or Atheism?
I strongly reccomend reading "Born Again Through Reason" First
When I first started my daunting study on religion and metaphysics, I was a staunch Atheist. If Yahweh and Allah were such monstrous entities then surely no god existed. If revealed religion was a sham, then all theistic thought was preposterous. However such one-dimensional thinking was infantile and spiteful on my part. I loathed religion, not god I soon reasoned. Yet the next encroaching dilemma I faced was why a god should exist, for every occurrence in nature has a scientific and non-supernatural explanation.
A common Atheist argument (which admittedly makes a good point) is the “age” of god. How can the “creator” have existed forever with no one creating him in return? Likewise, who would have created that creator of the creator? It appears to be an endless cycle of conundrums with no logical solution available. Nothing can exist independent of time, it’s common sense. However, there is a problem with this line of thinking. We base all of this on a perception. The perception is that what binds us, binds god. A creator would have created the universe and therefore the laws of nature that co-existed alongside it, so obviously he would be unobstructed by his own inventions, time in particular. All we have to judge on whether god exists are the laws of nature he’s left us. To ask whether god is scientifically impossible is to assume that science can even answer the question.
If a god didn’t forcibly stabilize the chaotic expansion of the universe after the Big Bang, the chances of any semblance of life forming would be akin to a hurricane ripping through a city and accidentally assembling a Boeing 747 out of the wreckage. This is due to the universal physical constants that define the characteristics of the universe. If even the slightest of variances had occurred in these essential constants then the Big Bang would not have expanded in the fashion necessary for life to develop. As previously stated, only a supernatural conscious being that knew what it was doing could have created the universe; otherwise, we wouldn’t be here. This is in no way in concordance with a “God of the Gaps.” The “gaps” I’m referring to are temporary uncertainties in science that advocates of Intelligent Design take advantage of to “dismiss” evolution and assert that life is too complex to be formed just by “random” natural selection and as thus must be guided by the hand of god. The problem with their thesis (besides their wild assumptions) is that natural selection is anything but random as only the most resilient organisms survive. Evolution is not the haphazard jumbling of a Rubik’s Cube; an organism’s adaptation is not relegated to the icy depths of improbability. Rather, as the renowned scientist Richard Dawkins aptly put “Natural selection is a cumulative process, which breaks the problem of improbability up into small pieces.” An organism doesn’t plan on being what it is, it merely happens to become that way through the unconscious and automatic process of natural selection. In hindsight a particular organism’s development into what it is today is improbable, but evolution doesn’t work that way. Natural selection takes one step at a time in an organism’s evolution into whatever happens to be most beneficent. A cactus for example, adapted in relation to the arid inhospitality of its desert environment. The cactus didn’t set out to become a cactus, it unconsciously set out to survive, which coincidentally happened to make it into a cactus. Had the environment been different it wouldn’t have ended up being a cactus. Evolution is blind, not random. As thus (and for innumerable other reasons) ID has been classified as junk science by the “Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District” federal court case and a 2002 sampling of 460 Ohio college and university science professors revealed that 93% found that there is no valid evidence that challenges the theory of evolution. 90% of the professors also asserted that ID has no scientific evidence whatsoever to stand upon. Only a few deluded pariahs such as the disreputable “biochemist” Michael Behe hold to ID in the scientific community. The difference between me and outcasts like Behe is quite clear; instead of praising temporary unknowns and misusing facts I’m stating that god is not guiding evolution but instead merely “seamed” the laws of nature within the very “fabric” of our cosmos so evolution and other phenomena would occur. Divine intervention is not needed for the workings in nature because god has already put all the gears in place to make the clock of the universe run.
Atheists still have a way to offset god of course, and using my very own defense! They assert that if we can presuppose that god can exist outside of time and space then why can’t the same be said for random volatile energy. Indeed if a god can spark the big bang then can’t the unintelligible energy do so too? Yet this is effortlessly countered using the fine-tuned universe (universal constant) argument. Ah, god’s existence seems conclusive then doesn’t it? Well unfortunately in the field of Quantum Mechanics there dwells the fringiest of fringe theories dubbed the “Multiverse” theory. Under this entirely hypothetical theory (no hint of it has ever been tangibly validated) there exists billions upon billions of parallel universes. Granted, the chances of any life forming without god in one particular universe may be atomically miniscule, but if there’s billions then it becomes much more plausible. So it comes down to two choices then doesn’t it? Either I’m to believe that there are hundreds of billions of parallel universes all around us that just so happen that they can’t be observed, and that we are the byproducts of random bits of retarded energy that just happened to be thrashing around in the right place, or I can take credence in a conscious entity. Using reason, I choose the god factor.
So after I discerned why there is almost certainly a god, I proceeded to contemplate his motives. This is a slippery slope, where one may start assuming and potentially stop reasoning. After I refuted organized religion I was consequently skeptical of anything I read afterwards. I came to what seemed to be an unlikely and unassuming source for the answer of my metaphysical ruminations: my old high school history textbook. While nostalgically thumbing through its painfully out of date pages I ironically found in the briefest of passages what made the most sense out of anything I’d read prior to it. The revelation of Deism: the founding fathers’ true “religion.” It essentially said (if one applies contemporary science) that once god sparked the Big Bang and steadied its expansion he withdrew and left the universe to its own devices. This immediately made sense for primarily two reasons. Firstly, since revealed religion is erroneous, it automatically showed that god hasn’t revealed himself. Secondly, no credible “miracles” have ever been factually recorded that didn’t have a scientific explanation behind them. In addition, if one were to try to defend miracles by saying something like “Oh those 20 people who survived the World Trade Center
Yet I questioned why he would leave us alone, and not help his children. As I stroked my chin, I suddenly was reminded of a mother blue jay exiling her babies into the cold bleak world. Why did the mother do it, (probably because it was getting too fat to take care of, but idealistically speaking) because independence is required to live life; to always intervene in her baby’s affairs would be denying her offspring the joy of the unknown. The blue jay youth would otherwise just be a needy slave to his mother’s metaphorical teat.
If god were to reveal himself and give us a doctrine to adhere to, a good portion of us would just follow it out of fear of his retribution (akin to many Christians that follow Christ out of fear for hell). Segueing, imagine if a parent threatened to burn their child with a lit cigarette, one would denounce that parent as a monster, correct? Yet conservative Christian parents who force down Biblical passages on hell such as the Gospel of Matthew’s “Cast them into a furnace of fire; there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth” are not only free from admonishment, but they are encouraged to mentally abuse their child! Those who would wish to render Christianity a friendlier demeanor sometimes like to think that the Christian hell is not eternal and that unbelievers are saved after being “cleansed.” This is known as Universal Reconciliation or Universal Salvation, but is more simply known as a groundless pipe dream. Not in one verse does the Bible say such a thing, and the entire foundation of Christianity stands unilaterally in opposition to it. One needs only look at Mathew’s “Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide, and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and many are those who enter by it. For the gate is small, and the way is narrow that leads to life, and few are those who find it." Then Matthew lays it down so even an inebriated baby could understand it by saying “These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” It’s highly doubtful that Yahweh would extend leniency to unbelievers when he actually bellows “For I, the lord your god am a jealous god.” If somehow one still clings to this feeble “idea” just ask the overwhelming majority of Christian church denominations that condemn universalism as heresy. For what would be the purpose of a messiah if everyone was already saved? The Gospel of John clarifies this by stating “But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.” Regarding those who don’t believe, John says “He who does not have the son of god does not have life.” According to Christianity salvation requires faith, that is a fact. Faith in Christ is required to negate original sin, or so the Bible blathers. Jesus himself even goes to exclaim “No one comes to the father except through me.” Those whom have had the misfortune of choosing the wrong religion will burn forever; every jot and tittle regarding salvation in the Bible demands it. If Yahweh was going to save unbelievers he would have said so when he forced Moses’ army to slaughter heathen children. He would’ve consoled the Israelites by telling them not to worry because the children they had brutally murdered would be brought to heaven once the Messiah came. As we already know, this did not happen. As thus, any deity that deems it acceptable to terrorize children into believing that their bodies will eternally be charred in a never quenching flame, just for the mere goal of obtaining their servitude, is no loving god, and no god of mine.
Despite the potential horrors of the afterlife in many organized religions, some prospective converts to Deism are put off by its ambiguous outcome after death. However, just like the adolescent blue jay leaving its nest to uncharted landscape, the best things are always left unknown. I am fully confident that whatever the Almighty has in store for me after my body ceases to function will be fully justified. It is in this sense that I throw panoptic scorn upon our current focus on the afterlife. Too many faithful spend more time evangelizing than physically helping. This insignificant pale blue dot of a planet is all we have to call our own; we must strive to attain paradise through earthly means, not by a divine hand. I know not what inevitably awaits us in the yawning chasm of the deep, but I do know that it won’t much matter what happens to our “souls” if our children are left a broken future. Without leaving our young a carefully marked path of lovingly trodden footprints, we have no future, and as thus no “souls” worth saving.
To me it’s evident that our cosmic creator has some semblance of affection toward us, for if he was apathetic to us why did he create the universe in the first place? If he had bloodlust, why would he allow any modicum of happiness whatsoever in this realm, and not instead mold it into a festering breeding ground for torture and pain? Therefore, since I exist, have not seen or heard of any credible “miracles,” am not tortured routinely, and all revealed religions are frauds, I then conclude that the Supreme Being is a loving entity that wishes the best for us, but cannot intervene lest he take away our freedom.
- I suspect that some will conclude that despite my ardent defense of god as an affectionate being, that he is wicked fundamentally. The question of evolution’s very nature cannot be avoided. Natural selection is a violent and cruel process that takes no mercy on the sanctity of life’s diversity. Yet this grievance has a unique perspective that goes unaddressed. What exactly are evolution’s machinations? The answer is already known of course, to perfect an organism’s weaknesses thus allowing it to survive. How does one survive though? Most organisms evolve by means of convention, such as a curvature of a finch’s beak that allows it to peck at grub wriggling within a tree’s innards. However, there is the inevitable chance that an organism will develop via the unconventional means of intelligence. Cats are aware of their environments and use this to stealthily approach their quarry, yet an example such as this only displays fundamentals. Yes, the cat uses its brain to outwit its prey but the cat is not sentient. Its brain is only active in the areas that most suit its needs. The cat does not contemplate its meaning, and hence has no meaning. To quote the film Donnie Darko “There’s no point in crying for a dead rabbit, who never feared death to begin with.” As thus, the unfortunate extinction of inadequate and ignorant species (although obviously the cat and rabbit are not extinct) is negated by evolution’s grand ambition. A creator would have most certainly anticipated the inevitable rise of consciousness in at least a handful of mentally capable creatures stretched across the infinite scope of the universe. So it could most certainly be argued that god intended for sentient organisms to evolve. He would not have to meddle in the universe’s affairs to make advanced life formulate, for it would unavoidably do so on its own. I confess that I cannot prove my thesis that god desired for organisms such as us in the end result of evolution; I merely believe it. I also admit that despite my unyielding assertions, I cannot conclusively prove that god is loving; I just believe it. I also believe that he hoped the sentient species that would inevitably emerge would assemble civilizations erected upon freedom and virtuousness. I have faith you see, faith in a god that deserves it, a god that is not a monster and a god that upholds our freedom. To harbor the perception that I am hypocritical is the mother and father of all follies. My faith is undeviatingly entrenched in rationality and science, something that cannot be said for religion. Faith and reason are not enemies; it has merely been a prevailing illusion that has manifested itself for thousands of years. The only paltry attributes I’ve been “endowed” are my basic reasoning skills and my adequate writing style; these are all I have in my possession and they are all I am able to use. Employing these rudimentary abilities I can demonstrably show how all revealed religions fail to logically hold up even under the most cursory of glances. If you ask any Muslim, Jew, or Christian whether they love god, you’ll be lucky to get off with a disgusted look. Obviously these people are faithful to their designated religion partially because they love god (the other part is their fear of god). If for one moment though, a Christian could prove to a Muslim that Christianity was the “one true religion” do you not think that he would drop the Quran and jump to his feet and rush up the nearest minaret to act as a muezzin for apostasy? There is absolutely no way to verify that any one revealed religion is genuine. If I love god with all of my heart and I desperately want to avoid damnation, how do I save myself? Am I to pull the handle of a salvation slot machine and hope that whatever dogma I follow is the right one? Am I to be eternally punished for merely not guessing the intended answer? Am I just supposed to “feel” the right religion? Any mentally balanced god would figure out that if he ever revealed doctrine to humanity via chosen prophets, that it would be impossible for people to know whether or not future alleged prophets were authentic or not. How can a Christian assure a Jew that Jesus was the real bona fide messiah when Jesus didn’t fulfill the Messianic Prophecy in the Tanakh? How does a Christian know that Islam isn’t correct when it says that the Bible has been corrupted and that the Quran is the final words of god? Can a Christian refute Islam’s assertions that Jesus (although a beloved prophet in Islam) was not the son of god and that he never died on the cross and will instead bodily descend from waiting in heaven on the Day of Resurrection to come to pray behind the Mahdi (the redeemer of Islam)? Since we cannot logically discern revealed religion’s validity, then we must conclude that all of them are fabricated. For if god purposely created man as the “big three” of revealed religion claim, then why would he make us forgo the use of our brains in the random guessing to the means of salvation? I condemn not the divine, but rather this thing called religion. I am an Atheist to the Godhead, an Atheist to Allah, and an Atheist to Zeus, but I am an apostle of Nature’s Creator. Lastly, if you wish to read Thomas Paine’s notorious “Age of Reason” I give you to the winds of caution. There are actually three sections to his magnum opus and many books and websites don’t even bother to include all of them. Parts of his writing have unfavorably aged in the relentless passage of time, but if you desire to delve into the mind of one of America’s greatest patriots, writers, thinkers, humanists, and first abolitionists then I suggest to read it anyway. I humbly implore you to question and research whatever you believe in regardless if you don’t agree with what I have written; for meekly accepting whatever oneself is told would be tantamount to committing intellectual suicide.
“My mind is my own church”
-Thomas Paine
If you’d like to reach me, please email me at AFILLINGMUFFIN@aol.com
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment